Re: aquarium photography ...

["David Colin Gorton" <colingorton@hotmail.com>]

I don't know what the editorial policy is for PC World magazine, i.e. I 
don't know whether the same articles appear in different language versions 
but; in the Spanish edition of PC World this week they have an article about 
a joint venture between Asahi Pentax and HP. In it they mention 3 new ranges 
of cameras with the top models selling at approx. $1200. Loads of bucks but 
loads of professional features as well. Pentax lenses too.

Colin


>From: "David A. Youngker" <nestor10@mindspring.com>
>Reply-To: apisto@majordomo.pobox.com
>To: <apisto@majordomo.pobox.com>
>Subject: Re: aquarium photography ...
>Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 02:04:52 -0400
>
>From: "Erik Olson"
>Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 11:06 AM
>
>
> > So for now, just call me "A-to-D Man".  I'll get back to scanning
> > negatives, OCR'ing journals, and capturing those old open-
> > reel tapes to CD. :)
>
>Having worked with just about every film format from 16mm (remember the old
>Minox "spy cams"?) to 8-1/2 x 11 sheets, I have to side with the "hard 
>copy"
>folks. There are simply too many variables that an "affordable" digital
>takes for granted in deference to our "gotta-have-it-now" societal 
>concerns.
>Plus I am much more capable in the darkroom than most of the manipulative
>programs available for graphics on the computer (although computers still
>hold the edge on "enhancement" techniques because I'm not as adept at 
>things
>like Fourier transformations and such...)
>
>Two questions pop to my mind - one from this discussion and another from
>previous discourses:
>
>Mike Wise mentioned using his digital for most of the work while being able
>to produce slides and such by "photographing his monitor" with a "cheap
>SLR". OK, I can see that happening - somewhat... What combination of
>film/shutter speed and monitor refresh rate gives you good, clear shots
>without "looking like a picture of an electronic display"? You know - no
>visible "banding", retrace "highs and lows", etc. Even Hollywood gave up on
>trying to make a picture of an active screen look "natural".
>
>And, to tie in to my opening quote from Erik:
>
>You've mentioned scanning both slides and, here, print negatives. In my 
>part
>of the world, those types of scanners run far and above the cost of
>reasonably sharp flat beds and the like. Can you dwell a little on what
>you're using here? I've finally managed to replace my bodies and lenses (as
>well as the other sundries - flashes, slaves, etc.), but lose a bit of the
>quality in having to produce digitals from hard copies. Work to produce a
>quality image from the negative, then work to produce a good digital from
>the photo - I don't know, but this seems like too much duplication of 
>effort
>to me. Why not cut out the extra step and cut straight to the chase?...
>
>-Y-
>
>David A. Youngker
>nestor10@mindspring.com
>
>
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>This is the apistogramma mailing list, apisto@listbox.com.
>For instructions on how to subscribe or unsubscribe or get help,
>email apisto-request@listbox.com.
>Search http://altavista.digital.com for "Apistogramma Mailing List 
>Archives"!

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the apistogramma mailing list, apisto@listbox.com.
For instructions on how to subscribe or unsubscribe or get help,
email apisto-request@listbox.com.
Search http://altavista.digital.com for "Apistogramma Mailing List Archives"!